"What AW fail to understand is that it needs dissenters to help sell their mag and make the forum tick. I have looked on the forum for the last four days and it has been dead with the magazine of last week also being very dull and boring, is this beccause they are all singing from the same hymn sheet and going along in harmony with the tedium of it all and slapping one another on the back, well lets see what happens in the long term because harmony never lasts for long within any institution and it eventually starts to fall apart, wouldnt the houses of parliament be a monastery full of silence and unopinionation without fiece debate and opposition? A lesson that AW should learn quickly if it wants to survive as folk are cancelling subscriptions quicker than clubs are rushing to the vote!! they need opposers to keep interest focussed."

I have tried to send A.W a letter which clearly shows an alternative analysis of the Foster poll...but for some unexplicable reason, They are being returned, this has never occured before, I hope my hard copy doesn't mysteriously vapourize. Here it is for any body who is interested.

Dear Editor,
would you be as kind as to print this short, simple but accurate analysis of the foster poll?

Why not look at these poll figures in a more fair and reasonable manner, i.e.

1250 clubs (a minimum of 75,000 members) did not vote in support of the Foster report, this represents 85% of eligible voters!

As a whole (not in 4 parts) vote, it would have been a draw!
But still only with 30% of all possible votes

The Scottish and Welsh votes “were not required” or identified in the results! Why were they used?

No figure was democratically agreed on for victory, prior to the vote! Therefore 15% can never equate to a democratic victory!

To attempt pushing forwards irregardless of opinion and without redressing these serious errors is the behavior of those, who in my opinion are unworthy of our costly but freely given voluntary time and expertise!

there is more than enough time to start the whole process again, but this time with a properly agreed agenda, fully independent consultation, proper selection of leadership which mainly represents the clubs, transparency, accountability, string free funding and no political interference....full club involvement and acknowledgement of our ownership of our sport.

I have to wonder why this was not done in the first instance

If such letters do not get printed then my subscription will be cancelled after 15 years of loyal readership, it seems that A.W is not people orientated any more so my £2.50 will go towards anybody wishing to start up an independent British athletic association which is free from politics,
and who operates an effective athletics news letter and forum!

penguin wrote:well that wxplains the returns but would the letter or letters be printed?

I don't see why not. I don't work for AW but am a regular reader and they did have 4 weeks with for and against the aspects of the Project Board proposals and I think it has done a good job in remaining impartial during this period.

My guess is that on the week that the news that the majority of proposals had received favourable responses (from those that replied) that they printed the more positive letters and that maybe this week will be the backlash from the naysayers.

Alternatively maybe AW don't want to see athletics self-destruct and will not stir things up even more by printing destructive comments when there is an urgent need to unit and work together rather than continue to fight.

Athletics will not self destruct, irregardless of whether we have a governing body or not! For some reason A.W are unable to side with the majority....as well demonstrated through the polls on this site!

zen wrote:Athletics will not self destruct, irregardless of whether we have a governing body or not! For some reason A.W are unable to side with the majority....as well demonstrated through the polls on this site!

There are less than 150 members on this site. Of them only a small percentage are regularly contributing. The polls being put up on this site are by a small minority and replied to by the same small group of people - how does that make them representative of the majority???

(I am sure you will be able to correct me in factual terms)

Maybe the people who feel more positively about things have just decided to do what David Moorcroft said in AW this week and will give up listening the same arguments all the time and are trying to move forward. Maybe they just dont frequent this board - it doesnt mean that they dont exist.

Perhaps Zen is doing what UKA has done and that is to construct a way of achieving a desired outcome...simple if you really think about it, Der!!!

Regarding the poll figures many vote without submitting a response, so who knows which of the 150 have voted ...the rest have the opportunity, so perhaps Zen is taking it for granted that the rest agree with him. (isn't that how its done?)

You cannot move forward until fair and reasonable arguments have been properly addressed, to his discredit Moorcroft is deliberately failing to do this, and is accusing the victims of the Foster poll of being Bitter when they keep reminding him of their valid points.

Maybe the 85% of clubs who did not vote for Foster, feel very positive about their stance against being dragged into the unknown, by Sport England driven inexperienced payed individuals.

Minerva, quoted

There are less than 150 members on this site. Of them only a small percentage are regularly contributing. The polls being put up on this site are by a small minority and replied to by the same small group of people

do you have personal knowledge of who has actually voted

So a small body of people UKA set up a Foster POll and only a few vote on it, is this what you are saying?????